If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Enjoyed reading the entire guide itself (assuming you didn't extend it beyond page 1 of the thread), and am now subscribing just so I can see the hilarious name show up in my feed when it's bumped. As a fan of Mummy: the Resurrection, where the Nomenclature Hekau has the same theory as this with a much better execution, I find the concept of the Truenamer fascinating (espeically with the "sourcecode of the universe" flavor), and its poor execution terrible, so seeing it gone over with a fine-tooth comb was fun.

I wonder about Xtomjames's posts on page 1; it sounds as though he maybe guessed that Truenaming worked the same way its authors thought it worked but forgot to specify in the (we've established, incredibly poorly written) rules, and then got in such a huff when people panned the class that Wotco wouldn't let them publish clarifications lest they insult the audience, its mother, and its dog enough to affect profits. Certainly if you could cast spells just by researching their truenames that would justify how hard it is, and it's a cool enough idea that I could see someone actually allowing it in the right kind of campaign.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by willpell

I wonder about Xtomjames's posts on page 1; it sounds as though he maybe guessed that Truenaming worked the same way its authors thought it worked but forgot to specify in the (we've established, incredibly poorly written) rules, and then got in such a huff when people panned the class that Wotco wouldn't let them publish clarifications lest they insult the audience, its mother, and its dog enough to affect profits. Certainly if you could cast spells just by researching their truenames that would justify how hard it is, and it's a cool enough idea that I could see someone actually allowing it in the right kind of campaign.

Honestly, even if you can get past the fact that the class is terribly-written (leaving out vital information, powers written in ways that sometimes make it impossible to figure out what they're really intended to do, etc) the Truenamer's basic mechanics are bad.

The fundamental impossible-to-fix problem with the class, underneath all its other issues, is that making skill checks to activate every single power you want to use is a terrible idea, since it's not a very valid way to give your enemies a chance to defend -- which, in turn, means that any offensive power requires at least two succeed-or-your-turn-is-wasted rolls, while powers that should be trivial still require one roll. Even aside from the balance of the numbers, that's just annoying on a physical level -- constantly rolling so many dice even to take very simple actions gets old fast, and it's frustrating when you have to constantly make sequences of rolls where any one of them will cause your action to fail.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Aquillion

Honestly, even if you can get past the fact that the class is terribly-written (leaving out vital information, powers written in ways that sometimes make it impossible to figure out what they're really intended to do, etc) the Truenamer's basic mechanics are bad.

The fundamental impossible-to-fix problem with the class, underneath all its other issues, is that making skill checks to activate every single power you want to use is a terrible idea, since it's not a very valid way to give your enemies a chance to defend -- which, in turn, means that any offensive power requires at least two succeed-or-your-turn-is-wasted rolls, while powers that should be trivial still require one roll. Even aside from the balance of the numbers, that's just annoying on a physical level -- constantly rolling so many dice even to take very simple actions gets old fast, and it's frustrating when you have to constantly make sequences of rolls where any one of them will cause your action to fail.

I understand where you're coming from, but I still love the thought of a skill-based casting system. The Truenamer has a lot of flaws, but it's still a vaguely workable system that allows pure skill to create magical and powerful effects. I love that flavor, and the idea that casting a spell isn't a sure thing. Heck, I think that adding a skill check to normal spellcasting, while a bit cumbersome and time-consuming, is a way to balance it out a bit.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Honestly, I think WotC came close to hitting the mark when they made Beckon Person. The spell works when you hit a flat DC 15 Truespeak check, but the higher your check is, the longer it lasts. You'd have to rebuild the system from the ground up, but I think that has more potential than the binary nonsense we've got now.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Zaq

Honestly, I think WotC came close to hitting the mark when they made Beckon Person. The spell works when you hit a flat DC 15 Truespeak check, but the higher your check is, the longer it lasts. You'd have to rebuild the system from the ground up, but I think that has more potential than the binary nonsense we've got now.

I've been messing around with a preparation/check/recharge system: you prepare a couple spells that you can use basically at will. When casting them, you make a check. Your check determines any possible augments the spell might have and determines how long you have to wait before you can use the spell again (generally measured in rounds). I've not put it to paper, but I'm thinking about it.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Oh hey Zaq I see you still haven't posted sample builds for the Truenamer in Post 10. Well in my post 111 I presented a gestalt Truenamer that could pull off a high high check without nightstick-ish type abuse. You could use it if you want.

Thanks to my cancer looking at one to two months left to live. Prayers are always welcome and have fun.

Live like your dying because today could be your last day.

I do have access to my laptop so can be on more often until my time is up. I do plan on making the most of it without investing into any long-term pbp.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Snowbluff

Actually make me want to play a Truenamer for kicks.

Maybe fixing it/making a similar but better class will be my first attempt at making a base class.

Well, can't say I didn't warn you about what you've got ahead of you, but if you're really into it, let me know how it goes!

Originally Posted by TurtleKing

Oh hey Zaq I see you still haven't posted sample builds for the Truenamer in Post 10. Well in my post 111 I presented a gestalt Truenamer that could pull off a high high check without nightstick-ish type abuse. You could use it if you want.

I've been meaning to add builds (and a few other tweaks), but I haven't had the mental strength to put the effort into it that it deserves. If I half-ass it, I'm no better than WotC, right? Who knows, though. I'll see what I can do.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

As a side note for optimizing your truespeak check at low levels I seem to have found a perfectly legit option you've overlooked. Fiendish Codex II offers the Pact Certain (pg24), a faustian contract in which a character sells his soul to a devil for any of a couple different possible rewards. Mechanically this exchange can get you up to a permanent +7 untyped bonus to any class skill (truespeak obviously) and doesn't actually cost you anything but the ability to be brought back by resurrection magics. It doesn't even impact your alignment by RAW (though I could see some DMs disagreeing depending on your presumed motivation for such blatant power grubbing). Of course, anyone planning to take the vile feats and use sacrifice rules may just consider this icing on the cake. For themantic fun you can always try to avoid your eternal destination via a friendly (or pissed off) Bereft and his word of unmaking.

I challenge the laws of nature and reason by summoning the power of destruction. EXIST

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Qwertystop

Well, if you're already Lawful Evil, or don't care about alignment, or are Good enough that you can work it off, it's still fine.

Good catch, though.

You've made a bit of an alignment fallacy there. Taking the Pact doesn't set some cosmic scale to "Evil", which your character could then do good deeds to change back to "Good". It makes you malicious. It makes you hateful. It changes the very core of your personality to be selfish and cruel and dark.

Being changed to Evil isn't like staining your shirt. It's like changing clothes.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by RaggedAngel

You've made a bit of an alignment fallacy there. Taking the Pact doesn't set some cosmic scale to "Evil", which your character could then do good deeds to change back to "Good". It makes you malicious. It makes you hateful. It changes the very core of your personality to be selfish and cruel and dark.

Being changed to Evil isn't like staining your shirt. It's like changing clothes.

Yeah, later on in the thing it says how, if you want to change back, you've got to forfeit any benefits from the pact. Plus, you'll probably peeve the devils a leetle bit.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by RaggedAngel

You've made a bit of an alignment fallacy there. Taking the Pact doesn't set some cosmic scale to "Evil", which your character could then do good deeds to change back to "Good". It makes you malicious. It makes you hateful. It changes the very core of your personality to be selfish and cruel and dark.

Being changed to Evil isn't like staining your shirt. It's like changing clothes.

Ah. That wasn't specified, so I misunderstood. There are things that are one alignment morally but detect as another (Demons, Devils, and Archons can "convert"), so I thought this could be kind of like that: The alignment is set to that, and you will forever detect as Lawful Evil.

Originally Posted by jamieth

...though Talla does her best to sound objective and impartial, it doesn't cover stuff like "ask a 9-year-old to tank for the party."

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

I'm amused by the fact that a Chaotic Evil character will become Lawful Evil if they sell their soul.

"RAaaah! I, Grognar Fleshrender the Barbarian, will do anything to get more power so that I rend more flesh! Now I sell soul for more vicious fleshrending power! There, I sign stupid contract and... suddenly, Grognar Fleshrender feel need to wear suit. Maybe switch to rending flesh only within acceptable legal framework."

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Well Zaq that is fine. Note thet since the the Tome and Wish have the same bonus not stacking the mod on mine goes down by about 2 or 3 sitting at 77 or 78. A static mod so rolla 1d20+78 with using a feat, utterance, class feature, and a spell could a +34-39 to the result 1/day. After that you only have the spell and utterance to boost it by 25 for as many times as can be done. Just the base modifer will allow you to get a utterance off on a Dream Larva with CR 31 before you have to start rolling. Yes I just said you can get a "free" utterance off on a CR 31 yet you are gestalt level 20. Still overall potent that also possesses 8 levels of Factotum fun as well as all of Chameleon. The Marshal dip even adds a little extra with the Skill Focus Diplomacy so can be party face even better. The gestalt build is in my post 111.

Thanks to my cancer looking at one to two months left to live. Prayers are always welcome and have fun.

Live like your dying because today could be your last day.

I do have access to my laptop so can be on more often until my time is up. I do plan on making the most of it without investing into any long-term pbp.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Zaq

The spell works when you hit a flat DC 15 Truespeak check, but the higher your check is, the longer it lasts. You'd have to rebuild the system from the ground up, but I think that has more potential than the binary nonsense we've got now.

This.

Originally Posted by RaggedAngel

You've made a bit of an alignment fallacy there. Taking the Pact doesn't set some cosmic scale to "Evil", which your character could then do good deeds to change back to "Good". It makes you malicious. It makes you hateful. It changes the very core of your personality to be selfish and cruel and dark.

And? If you fail to roleplay your new alignment by continuing to do Good (or Chaotic) deeds, your DM may rule that you no longer fulfill your alignment. Which, as long as you're not using any alignment-dependent items or classes, is completely without effect. (Granted the pact we're discussing is such an "item", but it still means you could lean on the pact for a while until your truespeak skill improves enough that you can live without the bonus, and then break the pact - maybe leave a sealed letter to yourself with instructions to break it when you kill a monster of a certain threshold of nastiness without aid, as an in-universe level-meter. The letter then tells you that you no longer need the pact and that you should resume your original personality.) Alignment only matters if you buy into the team spirit; it doesn't actually force you to behave in any particular way.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

It's quite fluffy, too: a hero realizing that he doesn't need a particular crutch to fight is a classic plot, more so if that crutch is an infernal contract. The devil won't be happy though...which means sequels!

Originally Posted by A_Moon

How many times, when the Fighter says "I draw my sword", did you just want to smack that cheating-optimizer in the face and say "No! You don't draw your sword! You draw Orcus!". When the Cleric says "I run away from Orcus!": "No! You run into Orcus! Rogue tries to hide? He hides behind Orcus! The bard in a tavern on the other side the town tries to order a drink? How about a nice frothy mug of Orcus?

Originally Posted by Guancyto

Perhaps this will sate Flickerdart's endless hunger for assassinations.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Love this thread.
But i think of truenamer as more of a test.
As in: You now you can min-max when you play truenamer and are still the most high damaging person in your party and can outclass even the wizard at level 10.
Maybe its because im the most experienced person in the group.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Kymme123

Love this thread.
But i think of truenamer as more of a test.
As in: You now you can min-max when you play truenamer and are still the most high damaging person in your party and can outclass even the wizard at level 10.
Maybe its because im the most experienced person in the group.

Yeah, some people forget, but poorly-played Wizards really are squishy, and they really do burn through their useful spells quite quickly. A Wizard pulling straight from Core with no Prc's and little thought put into spell preparation can be taken down by most classes if they're manned by someone who knows what they're doing. The Truenamer can certainly contribute more than a Wizard if they suck.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Kymme123

Love this thread.
But i think of truenamer as more of a test.
As in: You now you can min-max when you play truenamer and are still the most high damaging person in your party and can outclass even the wizard at level 10.
Maybe its because im the most experienced person in the group.

That could just as easily mean that your wizard sucks.
This is why objective measures of power (e.g. tier lists) use external benchmarks rather than stacking PC up against PC.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Decent guide but a few points.

1) In the cheese category you should add using Archers Eye to gain Spring Attack and trade it away using Chaos Shuffle for unlimited feats. It's debatable rules wise thanks to gaining the "use" of the feat but no more so than the rest of Truenamers funky wording.

2) Expunge the Supernatural and Spurn the Supernatural can be hideously nice when you use them to strip an enemy of favored supernatural abilities. Use it to strip a Druid of Wildshape for example. Spurn is better most of the time, and it's always situational but they aren't exactly bad.

3) Unname is a standard Save-or-Die that get's past most of the defenses against such spells, is one of the only ways to destroy artifacts (grab a no name orc, learn it's true name, give it an artifact, Unname it, and the artifact is irrevocably gone), and is perhaps the most effective way to keep an enemy permanently dead. And arguably a creature who has been Unnamed can't have their Truename researched as it has been erased from creation. If you want someone really dead, learn their true name, Rename them something else, and then Unname them. Only you will ever be able to provide their true name to resurrect them.

4) Truename Dispel is the best spell in 3.5 for removing hostile magic from an individual. Learn your own True Name (and those of your party) and you can remove anything you want from yourself or your allies at the cost of 1 spell. And if you know your targets True Name you can rip off (without save or SR) all of their magical defenses. It's honestly one of the few ways to get past a high end prepared casters defenses.

People who think Tippy equals win.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

Tippy=Win

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx

Wow... Tippy, you equal win.

Originally Posted by Immabozo

Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.

Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf

Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy

...is one of the only ways to destroy artifacts (grab a no name orc, learn it's true name, give it an artifact, Unname it, and the artifact is irrevocably gone), and is perhaps the most effective way to keep an enemy permanently dead. And arguably a creature who has been Unnamed can't have their Truename researched as it has been erased from creation. If you want someone really dead, learn their true name, Rename them something else, and then Unname them. Only you will ever be able to provide their true name to resurrect them.

...brilliant. Bet Gandalf wished he'd thought of that one to wipe the Ring.

For your second point though, it's not foolproof - you can explicitly RoR an nonexistent target if they've been Unnamed (see the sidebar on 261) so you can't keep someone dead with this even if you Renamed them previously.

But they don't come back with any equipment either, so the artifact stays gone

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Psyren

...brilliant. Bet Gandalf wished he'd thought of that one to wipe the Ring.

For your second point though, it's not foolproof - you can explicitly RoR an nonexistent target if they've been Unnamed (see the sidebar on 261) so you can't keep someone dead with this even if you Renamed them previously.

Yes but RoR requires, as it's true name component, that you speak the creatures current true name. All the Unnamed sidebar states is that the target is changed for RoR, not the true name component.

So if the person doesn't know the old Truename, arguably RoR wouldn't work.

People who think Tippy equals win.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

Tippy=Win

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx

Wow... Tippy, you equal win.

Originally Posted by Immabozo

Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.

Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf

Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy

Yes but RoR requires, as it's true name component, that you speak the creatures current true name. All the Unnamed sidebar states is that the target is changed for RoR, not the true name component.

So if the person doesn't know the old Truename, arguably RoR wouldn't work.

No, reread the sidebar - it explicitly states that this use of RoR is intended for beings that had their truename removed. So rather than speak their existing truename (which nobody knows except the person who Unnamed them to begin with) you create a brand new one for them. It goes on to say that this is an explicit exception to the RoR, thereby nullifying the paradox that would result in needing to know the name of something that has no name.

In other words, the truename component for this version of RoR is the new name you plan to give that person, not the existing name.

You can also duplicate RoR with Wish (it is 8th level) and bypass the Truename component that way.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

Originally Posted by Psyren

No, reread the sidebar - it explicitly states that this use of RoR is intended for beings that had their truename removed. So rather than speak their existing truename (which nobody knows except the person who Unnamed them to begin with) you create a brand new one for them. It goes on to say that this is an explicit exception to the RoR, thereby nullifying the paradox that would result in needing to know the name of something that has no name.

In other words, the truename component for this version of RoR is the new name you plan to give that person, not the existing name.

Incorrect. Probably RAI but by RAW all the sidebar alters is the target clause on RoR. It doesn't touch the true name component.

Originally Posted by Sidebar

this is an intentional exception to the target described in the ritual of renaming spell

You can also duplicate RoR with Wish (it is 8th level) and bypass the Truename component that way.

True, hadn't thought about that one. Nice catch. It's still one of the most permanent ways to deal with an enemy.

People who think Tippy equals win.

Spoiler

Show

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

Tippy=Win

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx

Wow... Tippy, you equal win.

Originally Posted by Immabozo

Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.

Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf

Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

Re: In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

one workaround to the Laws of Suck and Regurgitate is to allow truenamers to research utterances, or learn them off of scrolls, much like a wizard. give them enough variety to work with, and it doesn't really matter all that much if if they can only use a particular utterance once at a time.

78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

Where did you start yours?

The PCs were already a special forces type unit in a kingdom's military, so the campaign started in the general's office.